Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Question about the Wargasm 1962 scenario.

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Question about the Wargasm 1962 scenario. Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Question about the Wargasm 1962 scenario. - 1/5/2018 6:53:38 PM   
Steves762

 

Posts: 18
Joined: 1/5/2017
Status: offline 		I was going to give this scenario a try, and the briefing talks about launching the 9 Atlas-E missiles early in the scenario. But I am unable to locate these missiles. I can find the bombers ok, but not the missiles. Can anyone who has played this scenario shed some light on which base these missiles are located at?

Thanks,

Steve
Post #: 1
RE: Question about the Wargasm 1962 scenario. - 1/5/2018 7:52:56 PM   
Randomizer


Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline 		You cannot locate them because they are not ready, as I recall they're sitting in the Antarctic waiting to teleport. The scenario briefing advises that the missiles will report when ready and they will randomly appear in their historical locations around Fairchild AFB at between 17 and 33 minutes (if memory serves) into the scenario. You will get a popup message telling you that the missile is ready in all respects and you can launch any time after.

The liquid fuelled Atlas needed to be raised to firing position and then loaded with fuel and liquid oxygen and while the process was supposed to take 15-minutes, my research indicated that they never met that requirement which is one of the reasons why they were replaced after a very short (compared to the Titan II) operational service life.

By the way, you can actually launch the alert bombers and tankers within SAC's required 15-minute window without pausing the game if you launch them in flights of three for the B-52s and pairs for the tankers as was SAC METO (minimum interval take-off) procedure.

Hope that you enjoy the scenario, it was my second CMANO effort.

-C

< Message edited by Randomizer -- 1/5/2018 7:57:49 PM >

(in reply to Steves762)
Post #: 2
RE: Question about the Wargasm 1962 scenario. - 1/5/2018 8:04:19 PM   
Steves762

 

Posts: 18
Joined: 1/5/2017
Status: offline 		Ah, I understand now, historical accuracy

Thanks for the info, I look forward to trying the scenario.

Steve

(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 3
RE: Question about the Wargasm 1962 scenario. - 1/5/2018 8:26:15 PM   
Randomizer


Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Steves762

Ah, I understand now, historical accuracy

Thanks for the info, I look forward to trying the scenario.

Steve

Went and checked the released scenario and I was in error. Shortly after the scenario begins you will get a message from the 567th Strategic Missile Squadron headquarters acknowledging DEFCON-1 and advising that missiles will report when ready.

Good luck.

-C

(in reply to Steves762)
Post #: 4
RE: Question about the Wargasm 1962 scenario. - 1/6/2018 10:29:35 PM   
Ancalagon451

 

Posts: 330
Joined: 1/4/2018
Status: offline
quote:

Hope that you enjoy the scenario, it was my second CMANO effort.


Randomizer, are you by any chance the creator of "Defer, Detect, Defend"?

(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 5
RE: Question about the Wargasm 1962 scenario. - 1/6/2018 10:35:07 PM   
Randomizer


Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline 		That would be moi...

-C

(in reply to Ancalagon451)
Post #: 6
RE: Question about the Wargasm 1962 scenario. - 1/6/2018 11:40:08 PM   
Ancalagon451

 

Posts: 330
Joined: 1/4/2018
Status: offline 		Then this part of a post of mine is for you:
quote:

First Issue is with Defer, Detect, Defend: In both it's classic and CF-105 variants the NORAD airbases have plenty of interceptors with the "No Loadout" loadout PLUS some others with the "Reserve(avaliable)" loadout. This seems like an issue with the initial loadouts to me since you only need one of them to represent the unready but available planes.

I posted it in the community pack thread hoping the authors woud see it and instead I found you here.
Talk about chance .

Ancalagon

(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 7
RE: Question about the Wargasm 1962 scenario. - 1/7/2018 5:18:30 AM   
Randomizer


Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline 		It seems a pretty small nit to pick but here goes...

Deter, Detect, Defend was written for the very first public version of CMANO and much has changed since then. As I recall, the rationale was that aircraft with no loadouts gave the player the option to sortie them armed with internal guns only in desperate situations but the reserve aircraft needed to be readied. In most peacetime air force bases, it is probable that at least some aircraft on the flight line will be ready on short notice for training, post-repair test flights etc. and that is what the ready-no loadout planes represented.

Of course these aircraft are entirely separate from the fully armed, fuelled and briefed Alert interceptors, typically two per air-defence squadron in 1962.

When updating the scenario it seemed inconceivable that there would be issues with this but here we are.

-C

(in reply to Ancalagon451)
Post #: 8
RE: Question about the Wargasm 1962 scenario. - 1/8/2018 6:38:26 PM   
Ancalagon451

 

Posts: 330
Joined: 1/4/2018
Status: offline 		So if I understand you correctly it's a feature that has become a bug due to changes in funcionality? Because right now the player has thirty something "ready" planes than cannot be launched at all. If the scaling of the enemy forces is made on the assumption that those planes would be avalilable (even if only in a reduced capability) then that seems like a big issue to me.

Ancalagon

(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 9
RE: Question about the Wargasm 1962 scenario. - 1/8/2018 11:34:45 PM   
Randomizer


Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline 		I would not consider it a bug in any sense, rather an evolution of the mechanics of aviation operations in CMANO. One can assign ready times to Reserve aircraft that simulates planes under short-term repair (for example), so I can place A/C #4 on ready-Reserve to become available in X-hours and after the time elapses you can begin the mission loadout process. A/C with "no loadout" can in theory be begin the mission ready process immediately.

Had I wanted to preserve the option for immediate launch I could have used another loadout but the Player gets 2-Alert A/C per squadron plus at least two more in the ready process. I decided against providing a gun-only option when upgrading the scenario.

Since there is now no functional difference between "ready no-loadout" and "ready reserve" except the ability to set a time on the latter I don't understand what the complaint is unless it offends some sense of a necessity for symmetry in the Air Operations window. In the CF-105 variant of Deter, Detect, Defend none of the Avro Arrows at RCAF Station Comox are ready no loadout because when the Arrows replaced the Voodoos all of the ready status' needed to be written from scratch. Assets at the other bases were not changed because, as I wrote above, it seemed improbable that it would actually be an issue with any reasonable Player.

Some Players seem desperate to find CMANO bugs even where there are none. In my opinion it's not a feature that became a bug but rather more of a poor feature that was fixed to improve flexibility and provide greater authenticity in air operations and that only holds if I am remembering an inconsequential CMANO routine from years ago correctly; something that I am unwilling to declare with certainty.

You want a "fix", open the scenario in the Editor and change the ready status to taste.

-C

< Message edited by Randomizer -- 1/8/2018 11:36:11 PM >

(in reply to Ancalagon451)
Post #: 10
RE: Question about the Wargasm 1962 scenario. - 1/8/2018 11:56:17 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline 		"Some Players seem desperate to find CMANO bugs even where there are none"

Tru Dat

I read through these forums and watch how people twist themselves into pretzels to be The One who finds a bug. And most don't even know what a bug is.

(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 11
RE: Question about the Wargasm 1962 scenario. - 1/9/2018 10:36:27 AM   
Ancalagon451

 

Posts: 330
Joined: 1/4/2018
Status: offline
quote:

Since there is now no functional difference between "ready no-loadout" and "ready reserve" except the ability to set a time on the latter I don't understand what the complaint is unless it offends some sense of a necessity for symmetry in the Air Operations window. In the CF-105 variant of Deter, Detect, Defend none of the Avro Arrows at RCAF Station Comox are ready no loadout because when the Arrows replaced the Voodoos all of the ready status' needed to be written from scratch. Assets at the other bases were not changed because, as I wrote above, it seemed improbable that it would actually be an issue with any reasonable Player.


Is nothing like that, the (non)issue is that I thought that those planes had lost their loadouts in some deep reduilding due to database issues, and that if I played the scenario as is would have been overwhelmed by an enemy designed to face far more numerous defenders. I thought that I explained myself better but I supose I didn't.

Now that I know that the scenario is WAD I will give it a try tomorrow, thanks for your time and sorry for the annoyance.

Ancalagon


(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 12
RE: Question about the Wargasm 1962 scenario. - 1/9/2018 1:05:39 PM   
stilesw


Posts: 1497
Joined: 6/26/2014
From: Hansville, WA, USA
Status: offline 		Not a bug but a feature!!!!





Attachment (1)

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 13
RE: Question about the Wargasm 1962 scenario. - 1/9/2018 4:07:45 PM   
Randomizer


Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline 		@ Ancalagon, If your Snark Detector fired and I misunderstood the motive behind your post then I sincerely apologise.

Sadly there are some Forum members who always default to "Must be a Bug", or "X and Y are broken" or "scenario authors should do (or not do) Z" while uploading none of their own scenarios. Frequently the root of their issues originates with the user, often they fail to understand what CMANO is doing because they have not bothered with the extensive documentation and FAQ's. For the most part these people contribute little to the community but complaints and are snark-worthy in any reasoned response.

Please enjoy the scenario.

-C

(in reply to stilesw)
Post #: 14
RE: Question about the Wargasm 1962 scenario. - 1/9/2018 4:13:22 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
quote:

snark-worthy


Quotable Quote of the day

Happy New Year -C

B

(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 15
RE: Question about the Wargasm 1962 scenario. - 1/9/2018 4:41:49 PM   
Schr75


Posts: 803
Joined: 7/18/2014
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Hi Randomizer

Just wanted to take the opportunity to thank you for "Deter, Detect, Defend" and "Wargasm 1962", two of my favorite coldwar scens.
I play them regularly and have modded them many times to try out ideas and different weapons and planes.

They really make you appreciate modern weapon systems, when you have experienced the sheer frustration of watching your AIM-4 Falcons or AGM-28 Hound Dogs keep missing their targets.
I have actually tried adding AGM-48 Skybolt missiles to Wargasm 1962. They are quite a game changer. They can hit their target

Søren

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 16
RE: Question about the Wargasm 1962 scenario. - 1/9/2018 5:03:15 PM   
Randomizer


Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline 		@ Schr75, Thank you.

@ Gunner98, Back at'cha, B

< Message edited by Randomizer -- 1/9/2018 5:04:44 PM >

(in reply to Schr75)
Post #: 17
RE: Question about the Wargasm 1962 scenario. - 1/9/2018 6:07:16 PM   
Ancalagon451

 

Posts: 330
Joined: 1/4/2018
Status: offline
quote:

Ancalagon, If your Snark Detector fired and I misunderstood the motive behind your post then I sincerely apologise.


To be fair I think all the blame here is mine. I should have posted the clear explanation of the allegued issue in my last post in the fist one instead and I didn't.
I didn't realize until after I reread the thread but without it, it really seems like I'm nitpicking for the sake of it.

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. Tomorrow I'll give the scenario a try and I'm sure I'll have a blast playing it.

Ancalagon

(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 18
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Question about the Wargasm 1962 scenario. Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.875